sounds like a textbook case of entrapment to me, but you would still
probably get in trouble because who's word are they going to take as
fact, some kid who was dunk and sold drugs or an officer of the law who
is obviously a model citizen [sarcasm]
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law
enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no
previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids
conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to
break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to
be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For
example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be
someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or
other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a
person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready,
willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever
opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents
did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the
person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or
persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the
person is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs],
as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he
is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things
occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government
agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into
committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the
crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime
before the government agents spoke with him.